Nope this was Cole in the Mid 80's at the Camera Obscura Gallery in Denver.
Interesting as he was furiously anti-edition when speaking about it to me, told me of Kim doing this with his negative on the back of the mount and how he had pleaded with him not to do so. This was end of the 90's... shows how people change I guess.
While your points about galleries are well reasoned, do you think there is something to be said for galleries helping create markets, to stimulate interest and inspiration?
You bet there are Doug. I just didn't want to make their argument for them! There's been a long history in the fine arts of gallery owners, or patrons, who supported an artist financially so he or she could concentrate on creating more art. Sadly, this is far from the norm.
My impression (from waaaaay out here at roads end on the northwestern edge of the continent...and remember, that letter was written 5 years ago) is that there are some gallery owners who bellied up to the trough to get rich, and some collectors who only buy photographs to add to their investment portfolio. Neither has the long term welfare of the photographer in mind, except in somehow increasing the purchase price of the photographs. My point was that the Internet allows photographers another way to sell their work without having to play the game by their rules.
The trick is, a) how to get people to discover your photography, b) how to get people to realize the worth of your photographs without a gallery holding peoples hands, or without giving your work a 'stamp of approval', and c) what kind of pricing structure will work for you and your images.
Murray
__________________
_________________________________________
Note to self: Turn your negatives into positives.
You bet there are Doug. I just didn't want to make their argument for them! There's been a long history in the fine arts of gallery owners, or patrons, who supported an artist financially so he or she could concentrate on creating more art. Sadly, this is far from the norm.
My impression (from waaaaay out here at roads end on the northwestern edge of the continent...and remember, that letter was written 5 years ago) is that there are some gallery owners who bellied up to the trough to get rich, and some collectors who only buy photographs to add to their investment portfolio. Neither has the long term welfare of the photographer in mind, except in somehow increasing the purchase price of the photographs. My point was that the Internet allows photographers another way to sell their work without having to play the game by their rules.
The trick is, a) how to get people to discover your photography, b) how to get people to realize the worth of your photographs without a gallery holding peoples hands, or without giving your work a 'stamp of approval', and c) what kind of pricing structure will work for you and your images.
I've just taken a quick look (art - photographs - contemporary) on what I think is UK e-bay. It must be very discouraging for photographers who are serious about their work to see the going price for other prints up for grabs - hardly covering the cost of a machine print.
Safe to say, e-bay does not generally appear to "represent" the kind of work referred to through this thread.... that often seems to rest with galleries and photographer's own websites. There are exceptions as some people have said through this thread; obviously many advantages and disadvantages to the various outlets to weigh up.
Hi Doug,
Part of the problem of people purchasing from a photographers website (particularly for large images) which is also true of eBay is that the viewer can not truly see the quality, the tones, color, exposure, etc of the final photo. These can only be seen in person. That is why I have observed over the years that purchasers of my work usually have seen the work in person (as in from Art Shows), but they may purchase the size based upon their available space which they can later confirm on the website.
I don't know if Cole did this or not. But Kim did a number of photographs where he made one print from the negative and then he taped it to the back of the print for sale. In an interview he did within the last two years, he stated that he did this as a way to "let go" of the negatives, a stage he had to go through. Certainly each print was unique. He no longer does this.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG
have the option to remove this ad.)
Just out of curiosity, we put a print up for sale on e-bay a couple of years ago. It was an 8x10" black and white print I'd shot and printed. There was just a little interest and it did sell for a few £'s.
While my ego would love it if I sold some prints and even more if I made some real money out of it, it doesn't quite feel the right thing to do. In trying to work out my unease, it does seem to cheapen the image, or is it a case of vanity? I can't quite put my finger on it.
Is it the right thing to do?
right or wrong is up to you and your circumstance. For me, if someone is willing to pay for a print they are expressing true interest in the print, otherwise they wouldn't be purchasing.
This is one of those things that amuses me in landscape photographers. The fact they feel they need to travel the globe in search of landscapes that have not been made. While I love to travel and shoot, my best images are made in my own backyard and it is these that sell the most. I mean no disrespect to the Michael Kennas, Rolfe Horns or Josef Hoflehners out there as their work is quite beautiful, but I think photographers like this have also become a dime a dozen group and I have a hard time getting excited about any of it anymore. So do collectors if sales are any indication. It has become painfully obvious. There are too many shooters looking at the Michael Kenna business model and thinking they too can do it. They aren't looking to make great work, they're looking to make a living... to be famous. To me that is all bull&%$#. I think people need to look inward rather than outward to make their images great.
has anyone seen Josef's recent work from China? It's very good..... IMO......
Linear Mode
